Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

[Last Visible Dog]

***I'm tired of your nonsense. Here's the original article. Remind me (and many others) again what your point is. The issue at hand is that priest/professor at ND said that Creationism is unique (pretty much) to the US. He made no mention of the cosmos. No one has. No one discussing biological evolution ever has. You have. Why?

You statement is incorrect - read the first message in this thread:

Despite movements across the nation to teach creationism in public schools, a science historian said Monday that Christians haven't always used a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain the world's origins.Tell that to some of the folks on this forum.

This statement refers to the "world's origin" which is cosmology and not biological evolution (as you are now claiming)

I accept your apology in advance.

[Last Visible Dog]

I don't know about you guys, but I've officially quit with this guy. We all have our limits. see you in the next thread.

I accept your unconditional surrender – I am sorry I had to nail your butts to the wall (figuratively speaking). You Cat’s need to learn better ways of dealing with being wrong.

[music_code]

With reference to your last line...how would one explain the prayers of non-Christians that are answered?

The Lord sends rain on the just and the unjust. There is no question that He works in the lives of many who do not know Him as their personal savior, in order to protect them from harm or to bless them in their endeavors. It would be impossible for me or anyone else to say how much consideration God gives to the prayers of the unsaved.

[Last Visible Dog]

Ahh, but you did proclaim I was wrong when I guessed that had had never studied Cosmology either as an undergrad or grad student, so pointing out the specific laws of physics that are violated by "ThinkPlease's" explanation, and how they violate them, should be a piece of cake, unless you really didn't study Cosmology after all.....

No. You are wrong. I said I thought all matter condensed to a pin-point violated laws of physics (and I said I could be wrong). ThinkPlease said no laws are violated and I asked ThinkPlease to example - Now you are telling me I have to support ThinkPlease's position.

The parade of fallacious logic continues. I studied Cosmology in the context of philosophy (my major) not in the context of physics.

[eastsider]

This bit about the 16th century is either a misquote or naive suggestion.

I lean toward the same school of naivete that teaches that Columbus' contemporaries were flat-earthers.

[Last Visible Dog]

We were discussing BIOLOGICAL evolution. YOU were discussing COSMOLOGICAL evolution. 2 DIFFERENT animals.

Actually that is an incorrect statement.

They are two application of the same concept.

You just aren't going to able to twist your way to victory on this one

[general_re]

The parade of fallacious logic continues

This would be of a different sort of fallacious logic than your own fallacy of equivocation, then? "Evolution", anyone?

[Last Visible Dog]

Evolution, the term came about from Darwins theory, the word was then used for other theories, such as COSMOLOGICAL evolution. We discuss the FIRST, not the second.

Wrong again. The word evolution cames from the latin word voluti a variation of "unroll". Darwinism is a type of evolution.

[Aric2000]

Notice that he got 666, is it a sign?

I have stated elsewhere that we discuss the Specific theory of evolution, and that cosmology is a general theory that seems to have biologic evolution as a part.

I have stated this MANY times, and when I choose to say it differently, you attack it.

Yes, I see.

Buh bye.....

Semantic games intellectual dishonesty will get you no where.

[Last Visible Dog]

This would be of a different sort of fallacious logic than your own fallacy of equivocation, then? "Evolution", anyone?

please explain my "fallacy of equivocation" or is this just a baseless attack (stab in the dark)

The reality is my tormenters are applying the “fallacy of equivocation” basically they are saying “Biological Darwinist evolution is evolution therefore all evolution is biological Darwinist evolution”

I guess some of you people never tire of being skewered by your own statements.

HINT: if you plan on attacking a position, you better provide supporting evidence or your attack could be turned back on you.

[stuartcr]

It would appear then, that the one God takes care of everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. As you say, it's impossible to say how much consideration God gives to the prayers of the unsaved. The supposition that someone is saved or not, it seems, is therefore irrelevant.

[Last Visible Dog]

I have stated elsewhere that we discuss the Specific theory of evolution, and that cosmology is a general theory that seems to have biologic evolution as a part. I have stated this MANY times, and when I choose to say it differently, you attack it.

If I did - it was a mistake. I apologize. In a sea of "gotcha" attacks - things get confusing.

[Last Visible Dog]

Semantic games intellectual dishonesty will get you no where.

Empty unsupported accusations will also get you no where

[Aric2000]

The reality is my tormenters are applying the “fallacy of equivocation” basically they are saying “Biological Darwinist evolution is evolution therefore all evolution is biological Darwinist evolution”

Your tormenters? YOUR tormenters.

Now I have heard it all.

And NO ONE has stated that ALL evolution is Darwinist evolution.

NOT ONE person on this thread has stated that.

Now you are making things up.

Intellectual dishonesty, plain and total.

You need to get a grip.

You now join that wonderful Virtual ignore list in my head, what fun for you. Not many people can make themselves so redundant and ridiculous to make it onto that list, but after that list bit of conniving and ridiculous goo, you just absolutely belong there.

[Aric2000]

And now for the first,

LVD skipping placemarker for me

[f.Christian]

ss ...

Race, evolutionary theory, in fact, reveals the Glory of God even more than creationism.

fC ...

anarcho-loon whack alert !

Is this a darwinian slip ?

[Last Visible Dog]

Look, look! It's more than biology and cosmology: The Evolution of the Computer.

Technological evolution is just as much evolution as biological.

The only things that are different is the methods and driving force (yes, I know the term “driving force” can be a can of worms in and of itself)

Grasshopper, you are learning.

[f.Christian]

socf ...

"It is error alone which requires the protection of government. The truth can stand by itself."

2 posted on 05/13/2003 3:06 AM PDT by sackofcatfood

fC ...

This is ... exactly --- the case in America ....

Evolution is a bolshevik monopoly ---

run by anarcho-nazi-loons !

[Last Visible Dog]

Your general theory is NOT what we were discussing, and when told that, you demanded that we discuss YOUR definition of evolution, which is NOT our definition of evolution.

1. I am allowed to present my positions without your permission.

2. I have not demanded anything of anybody. My position was attacked (mainly with name-calling and no supporting evidence)

3. I have clearly restated my point/position. Now it is your turn: WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT! (other than a game of gotcha)

[general_re]

please explain my "fallacy of equivocation" or is this just a baseless attack

You're kidding, right? Was it someone else who was comenting on the "evolution" of the cosmos and implying that it was somehow relevant to biological evolution?

Studied philosophy, did you? You should demand a refund - trust me, you're entitled to one.

The reality is my tormenters are applying the “fallacy of equivocation” basically they are saying “Biological Darwinist evolution is evolution therefore all evolution is biological Darwinist evolution”

The reality is that the subject of this thread is biological evolution, your attempts to insert cosmological theories notwithstanding.